| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1251 | CICOM/A/E/23/00115 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00028 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “An appeal against online submission vide reference CICOM/R/T/23/00028 (ADMIN SECTION) poorly, partially dealt by Devender Kumar 01126105041 soadmn-cic@nic.in REQUEST DISPOSED OF 03/04/23 A copy of reply has been sent to the appellant is enclosed. so he is acting likely very clever to keep pending online disposal as i returned letter post then on 3rd April23 being disposed of online before being time over of 30 days writing such single line disposing of online on 03rd april and uploaded fiel 2023/CIC/ADMN/RTI 31.03.23 signed on 31st march23 with hiding contact details of undersigned, purposefully official email id being hiding for FAA as well so just wasting public time without obliging his basic duties to improve delivery of public services, no longer call, email from CPIO then no longer he is bothering to write complete information of First Appellate authority and online status showing as follows: CPIO wasting paper, signing manually,hiding contact credentials not using eoffic and abusing position against directions of DOPT ref.10/1/2013-IR 06Oct,2015 undersigned G.S.Arora,Deputy Secretary,Information Rights 23092755 to use RTI logo, True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act so Poor ambitio CICOM/R/T/23/00028(ADMIN SECTION) Devender Kumar 01126105041 soadmn-cic@nic.in REQUEST DISPOSED OF 03/04/23 A copy of reply has been sent to the appellant is enclosed. CICOM/R/T/23/00028 Prabhjot Singh Gill Received Date 03/03/2023 Public Authority Central Information Commission Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF Date of action 03/04/2023 Reply :- A copy of reply has been sent to the appellant is enclosed. View Document Your RTI application has been forwarded to multiple CPIOs forwarded to multiple Public Authory(s)Nodal Officer Details 011-26172690 rticell@cic.nic.in Make decision against this RTI Appeal with using eoffice,esign/dsc to save public funds, paper and do not send letter post anymore i.e. not required so paperless governance is useful with significance and manually signed decision copies are not acceptable so oblige basic duties to serve public in ethical, timely manner. Disclose info without hiding anything,i will inspect record,make sure decision copies against this must esigned/digitally signed to save paper,use eoffice to utilize technology solutions in transparency,accountable manner. I will inspect public authority-CIC records,CPIO,FAA must approve evisitor pass and behave with courtesy to produce available public documents.Do not sent letter anymore/ever Prabhjot Singh Gill Son of Ankpal Kaur 8146007472 Prabhjotgillunique77@hotmail.co.in Psgill7@bluetiehome.com Esigned/digitally signed Decision copy by Roop Avtar Kaur must be uploaded online or even if willing to send same upon provided electronic email ids.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1252 | CICOM/A/E/23/00113 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00181 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: Directive No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 15/11/2010, signed by the then Chief and all Information Commissioners, was issued to all public authorities. Extract is available in the enclosure of a private RTI application of 2017 made public by the CIC at https://dsscic.nic.in/rti-request/view-pdf/2R201750397.pdf (ATTACHED for your ready reference). I am unable to access the Directive itself through CIC website. On 01/03/23, I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00181 for (1) certified copy of the CIC Directive No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 15/11/2010 and (2) path from CIC website home page to where it is published (and, if it is not published now but was published earlier, also the decision by which it was removed). On 31/03/23, my request was disposed of on RTI Online portal with letter dated 28/03/23 of Consultant (Admn) & CPIO saying, under Information Provided, for both points 1&2: No such information is available on record. GROUNDS: The answering CPIO is a consultant and his letter does not specify either the information sought or that it is not available on the record of the CIC. REQUEST: I request specific official confirmation, by an officer of the Commission on official letterhead of the Commission, that the Directive No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 15/11/2010 is not available on the record of the CIC and that no information of its publication on / removal from the websites of the CIC is available on the record of the CIC.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1253 | CICOM/A/E/23/00114 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00183 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Letter dated 10/09/2014 No. 1/34/2013-IR of DOPT Director (IR) to CIC Secretary had conveyed approval for a pilot project proposed by CIC and for CIC to seek, for expenditure thereon of Rs. 7,20,000/-, the necessary budget provision of in RE 2014-15. In request dated 01/03/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00183 I enclosed copy of the DOPT letter and sought copies of the CIC letters No. 6/1/2013/CIC/Admn dated 19.12.2013, 26.6.2014 and 28.8.2014 referenced therein. On 31/03/23, my request has been disposed of on RTI Online portal with letter dated 28/02/23 rejecting the request for two out of the three CIC letters sought. The letter says (under Information provided): The letter dated 19/12/2013 and 26/06/2014 have some personal information and hence are covered under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and the same are denied however, a copy of letter dated 28/08/2014 is enclosed. GROUNDS: A. Section 8(1)(j) exempts information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which (either) has no relationship to any public activity or interest (or) would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Section 8(1)(j) patently does not apply to the CIC letters that I have requested because: (i) CIC letters seeking approval of a pilot project at public expense are information relating to that public project and not to any personal information, (ii) CIC letters about a pilot project (that culminated in a report tiled Transparency Audit: Towards An Open and Accountable Government) from which originated the Transparency Audit methodology in use (published on CIC website) have direct relation to a significant public activity, (iii) CIC letters to DOPT were apparently not marked confidential and would already have excluded any details involving any unwarranted invasion of privacy. B. CPIO has not indicated the nature of the SOME personal information contained in the letters that attracts the exemption u/s 8(1)(j) for the letters themselves. Personal information by way of personal data (names, addresses, phone numbers, etc) can simply be redacted in terms of section 10. I cannot imagine what other personal information in correspondence for approval of a public activity project complete and over 8 years ago warrants secrecy now. REQUEST: Please examine the letters dated 19/12/2013 and 26/06/2014 that CPIO has denied u/s 8(1)(j) to decide, in view of the grounds set out herein, if the exemption has been justifiably invoked. If you find the denial unjustified, please provide copies of the two letters with your order.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1254 | CICOM/A/P/23/00059 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00136 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The said letter was delivered upon the addressee on 24.02.2023. The C.P.I.O. was under a legal obligation to give a correct, complete and non-misleading information within the prescribed period but he has neglected in giving the information causing inconvenience to the Appellant herein. Hence, this appeal. (i) The appellant humbly pray to issue a mandate to give the desired information within two weeks from the date of disposal of this appeal. (ii) To pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper.†DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, the concerned CPIO received the RTI application on 07.03.2023 and furnished reply to the RTI application on 31.03.2023 i.e. within the prescribed time limit as per the RTI Act, 2005, whereas the appellant filed the First Appeal on 24.03.2023 but as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal of non-receipt of the reply, a copy of the RTI reply is being attached with this order. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1255 | CICOM/A/P/23/00060 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00151 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Due to ignoring the Section 20 for penalties as well as respondents primarily apologized for delay cause and also claimed delay cause was inadvertent resulting dispose of this second appeal unsatisfied (No. CIC/PNBK/A/2018/152771 dated 1-9-2020. Accordingly being an innocent for legal opinion I again submitted an application to Chief Information Commissioner for recalling the order dated 25.9.2020. For which I was informed “YOUR DAK HAS BEEN DIARIZED VIDE DIEARY NO. 129134 dated 30.9.2020†Thereafter I approached on Phone to know the status and I was assured hearing will be held at least after two years, Accordingly after passing specified time I again approached on Phone to know the date of hearing but no response. After getting disappointed from the concerning, with no option I have file RTI for knowing the procedure for seek justice of time Bar. †“Please keeping in view the facts I request you to please look into the matter & let me know procedure to seek justice of time bar unsatisfied.†DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1256 | CICOM/A/E/23/00111 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00025 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: On 01/03/23, I made to DOPT request No. DOP&T/R/E/23/01314 for copies of note part of DOPT file in which action was taken on a DOPT RFD target and DOPT letters to CIC on subject thereof. On 02/03/23, DOPT made transfer to CIC vide No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025. (DOPT also kept the request and provided, after payment of charges, some copies by letter dated 24/03/23). On 31/03/23, CIC Admin Section CPIO disposed of the transfer receipt with online Reply - saying RTI fully disposed off on 31.03.2023 - and attached letter dated 31/03/23 No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI saying, under Information Provided: No such information is available on record. GROUNDS: A) DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025 was impermissible in law. Section 6(3) is not open to a public authority whose CPIO can provide the requested information. B) The (nil) disposal of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025 was impermissible in law. A request received and accepted u/s 6(3) must be disposed of by decision u/s 7(1) either providing the requested information or rejecting for a reason from u/s 8 or 9. It cannot be disposed of by saying the information is not available on record because section 7 is not open to public authority or CPIO not holding the information. C) The disposed of status of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025 is false. Because it was not returned or rejected, it will count on RTI Online MIS as a case of information furnished. I have no choice but to file appeal so as to not become complicit in falsification of RTI statistics. REQUEST: (a) Please confirm the decision of CPIO (No such information is available on record) for request point no.2. Copies provided by DOPT of the DOPT letters to CIC (dated 15/09/14 & 31.10.2014 to CIC Secretary, dated 10/03/16 to CIC Additional Secretary, and dated 21/09/16 & 11/11/16 to CIC Secretary) are ATTACHED for your information. (b) Please have the REQUEST DISPOSED OF status of No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025 rectified in the RTI-MIS account of CIC and, if you deem it fit, please advise CIC CPIOs to return u/s 6 to source (instead of purporting to dispose of u/s 7) requests for information not held by them.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI Application and provide information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 09.05.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1257 | CICOM/A/E/23/00109 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00322/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO, I hereby file first appeal for consideration:- I have asked for following information in respect of my complaint which was registered as appeal number CIC/LBDPD/A/2021/663376-UM. 1 Copy of the page of RTI act (as I could not find any such provision) depicting there in that it is the solely at the discretion of the commission to consider it as complaint or second appeal. Since I have asked for the copy of information which was not provided by CPIO, instead he had provided some narration which is not admissible under the act as per section 2(f). so please provide the copy as asked for depicting therein, that it is the solely at the discretion of the commission to consider it as complaint or second appeal. Please ask CPIO to provide information specifically asked for. 2 Provide the Copy of the page of RTI act (as I could not find any such provision) depicting there in that a person cannot file appeal and complaint separately and he has to file either complaint or appeal. instead he had provided some narration which is not admissible under the act as per section 2(f). So please provide the copy as asked for depicting there in that a person cannot file appeal and complaint separately and he has to file either complaint or appeal. Please ask CPIO to provide information specifically asked for. 3 Provide copy of guidelines/law under which my complaint was returned. But no information provided.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No.1 As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. For Point No.2 CPIO (DR CR-I) is directed to reply to Point no. 2 of the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 09.05.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1258 | CICOM/A/E/23/00110 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00024 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: A number of my requests in 2022 to CIC for information indicated in the brief Minutes of Meetings published on CIC website were futile. Therefore, on 01/03/23, I made a request to DOPT (No. DOP&T/R/E/23/01313) for copies of a DOPT letter to CIC and CIC response letter to DOPT that were mentioned in Minutes of CIC Meetings of February 2011. On 02/03/23, DOPT made transfer to CIC vide No. CICOM/R/T/23/00024. (DOPT also kept the request and by letter dated 27/03/23 provided, after payment of charges, copies of DOPT letter dated 06/01/2011 No.1/1/2011-IR to Secretary, CIC and CIC letter dated 08/03/2011 No. CIC/Legal/2011/020 from Secretary, CIC to Secretary, DOPT). On 31/03/23, CIC Admin Section CPIO disposed of the transfer received from DOPT with online Reply - saying RTI disposed off on 31.03.2023 - and attached letter dated 31/03/23 No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI saying, under Information Provided: No such information is available. GROUNDS: A) DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00024 was impermissible in law. Section 6(3) is not open to a public authority whose CPIO can provide the requested information. B) The (nil) disposal of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00024 was impermissible in law. A request received and accepted u/s 6(3) must be disposed of by decision u/s 7(1) either providing the requested information or rejecting for a reason from u/s 8 or 9. It cannot be disposed of by saying the information is not available because section 7 is not open to public authority or CPIO not holding the information. Also, the present case is of (nil) disposal by Admin Section CPIO of transfer receipt of CIC for information that apparently concerned Legal Cell. C) The disposed of status of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00024 is false. Because it was not returned or rejected, it will count on RTI Online MIS as a case of information furnished. I have no choice but to file appeal so as to not become complicit in falsification of RTI statistics. REQUEST: Please have the REQUEST DISPOSED OF status of No. CICOM/R/T/23/00024 rectified in the RTI-MIS account of CIC and, if you deem it fit, please advise CIC CPIOs to return u/s 6 to source (instead of purporting to dispose of u/s 7) requests for information not held by them.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1259 | CICOM/A/E/23/00112 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00026 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: On 01/03/23, I made a request to DOPT for information about its RFD targets. On 02/03/23, DOPT made transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00026 to CIC. On 29/03/23, the transfer was disposed of with online Reply: No information is available. GROUNDS: A) DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00026 was impermissible. Neither condition u/s 6(3) was met. B) The (nil) disposal of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00026 was impermissible. A request received and accepted u/s 6(3) must be disposed of by decision u/s 7(1) either providing the information or rejecting for a reason from u/s 8 or 9. C) The disposed of status of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00026 is false. Because it was not returned or rejected, it will count on RTI Online MIS as a case of information furnished. I have no choice but to file appeal so as to not become complicit in falsification of RTI statistics. REQUEST: Please have the REQUEST DISPOSED OF status of No. CICOM/R/T/23/00026 rectified in the RTI-MIS account of CIC and, if you deem it fit, please advise CIC CPIOs to return to source (instead of disposing of) requests for information not held by them.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1260 | CICOM/A/E/23/00108 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-04-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00219 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “First Appeal The reply given by CPIO is "Action is being taken.". The reply is vague, unclear and unsatisfactory. It is not clear what action is being taken, whether it is filed or under process. The information sought is "present status" of references, diarised vide no. 664320 dated 01.12.2022 and Diary No. 665976 dated 09.12.2022. It is requested that CPIO may be directed to provide information with clarity i.e., the name and designation of the officer with whom the aforesaid references are pending and since when etc.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04.05.2023, free of cost The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |